Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I like the abuse of stats, as if merging all of these parties means every voter goes to the new merger. It was the same theory behind the leaders of the attempted coup at the federal level spouting off their "54% majority" nonsense. The problem now is the same as it was then: A Liberal voter is voting Liberal, not "Liberal and NDP and Green". You merge three parties that represent three very different ideologies, and you will end up with one party that represents none of them.
|
As opposed to a parliament that represents none of them? It's better have a party that's in the same ballpark as what you believe that (hypothetically) could actually win than one that represents your views exactly but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
I can think of a few reasons to avoid PR.
The first being geographical representation. An MLA should represent his constituents first and his party second. It is his job to argue for the region that he represents to make sure that the area gets fair treatment in both policy and spending. Under PR the MLAs represent a party and it removes any local representation.
Another complaint of PR is that it can give too much power to the small parties. It is more likely to result in a minority government which means that for anything to pass the largest party will have to compromise with one of the smaller parties to gain the votes. This sounds good, but what happens when 5% of the population votes for a racist party who now holds the balance of power.
Using the results from the last election and true PR the seat count would have been.
PC's 38 seats
WRA 30 seats
Liberal 9 seats
NDP 9 seats
Alberta party 1 seat
The clear result of this system is that Allison Redford would have been found in contempt of Legislature.
I am not specifically against PR but don't think it is fair to claim that it is the obvious and most effective choice.
|
On your first point, there are proportional systems that preserve local representation. For examples, single transferable vote and mixed member proportional. Single transferrable vote actually beats what we have now for local reprensentation in that not only would everyone have a local representative, they'd actually have several and likely at least one from a party they support.
On your second point, how is an amount of power that correlates to the amount of vote received "too much"? Say the racists do get 5%: there's a coalition somewhere in the other 95% that doesn't involve them.
At the federal level, first-past-the-post has given us a majority government that represents the right-most 40% of the population. Now that's what I'd call giving too much power to a small party (
). Under PR, a majority coalition would at least have to include the median voter, so I'd say that PR actually does a better job at producing moderate governments.
PR is the way to go, the only thing that's not obvious is the form it should take. STV and MMP are both very good systems. (Or we could go with a system I just invented, mixed member single transferable vote!)